tv [untitled] October 9, 2010 7:00pm-7:30pm PST
to you? >> that is correct. we did have a community meeting at the yacht club. there were concerned neighbors in the immediate vicinity. commissioner lee: you are looking at their annual revenue for this $7,000. >> for the two locations, 50% of the time the truck would operate. for the two locations, which is 100% of the time, it would be $14,500. commissioner lee: but the marina has not been awarded yet. >> 50% time, it would be $6,000 minimum. commissioner lee: throwing in an extra thousand if they get the marina? "$7,000 is based on projections. the project to give us the amount of sales they expect to have. they project $7,285.
if they do not get approved for the marina location, we would suggest they operate full-time at big rec or someplace else so they make the minimum guaranteed annual rent of $12,000. commissioner lee: what was the terms be if they do not get the marina? >> we would look to find another location for them. commissioner lee: it just seems like you are looking at potentially two separate agreements, right? we have not gotten to the marina yet. given the last hour, there is no certainty that the marine that is going to be there. >> that is correct. commissioner lee: so wouldn't you want to hedge and perhaps negotiate a separate -- negotiate this as a separate one-off location and negotiate
as opposed to contingent on the second plot, since you do not know when or if? >> i apologize. that was our intention. i clearly was not very clear about that. i was presenting a bigger picture, but it is our intention to negotiate an initial agreement based on the initial location and hopefully add an addendum which extends to the second location. commissioner lee: i want to make sure when we are hearing this proposal that we are looking at specifically what is in front of us. >> that is correct commissioner le. commissioner lee: and not presupposing an outcome that has not happened yet. >> thank you for that clarification. >> we do have public comment.
>> i will take off my skating ahat. we petitioned the department and are in the process of making a dog area that was disbanded. it never made it to the commission. i have talked with a number of the people in the neighborhood that i see at big rec and we are skeptical because you are trying to sell ice cream to eskimos. the weather is bleak this last year. it has not been producing anything. dogs might like it. i applaud that you want to raise money. we understand the ban will be placed out on a street. there is not really room at big rec moving it out at 3:00 in the afternoon would not be appropriate with all the people
walking up and down that path. my one concern is where it is going to be placed on mlk. there is a crosswalk there that does not work terribly well. this is the full traffic into the academy. we want to make sure there is this ability for pedestrians. it is dangerous as it is because cars typically run the stop sign to get up to ninth avenue. also, the sidewalk is quite narrow. i am not sure how tables and chairs would work. if you think you can clean this space and allow a van to pull in and out of it, i salute you. you might consider across the street in front of the county halt building. there is a large pull out their which is not supposed to be used by anyone. i do not know if that would work. i do not have any objections to other than speaking to my wife
who is on the national board of obesity. she does not think we need more of this. i would hate to be a parent trying to get my child home and who has to pass the ice cream stand. president buell: i hear you. the creamery is a nice, organic local producer. >> i am co-owner of the ice cream truck. i want to thank the department and the commission for giving us this opportunity to sell our wares in the park. in response to the concern about calories, i would like to just point out that i spent yesterday making mellon popsicle is that are sweetened entirely with honey that is from a backyard beekeeper in to run. no sugar, all for it, pretty healthy. president buell: sounds like a
plan. >> we are very much looking forward to being in golden gate park and being part of that community. we hope that we can become something of an attraction. it is an out of the way place and we are getting our gears in motion for making certain that people know we are there and that it can become something of a destination in the park. we very much hope. we also plan to, as michael pointed out, it do cleanup in the park and make sure we are very much a part of keeping the parks beautiful and vibrant. that is all i have to say at this point. >> is there any other public comment on this item?
>> that is a very popular item, and i eat ice cream anyway. go ahead with that. >> thank you. >> i would just like to point we spent the last couple of hours having a spirited discussion about what was local and not local business. this business is as local as they get. they also source the materials and labor from local sources. i think that is a good idea to support that. president buell: thank you very much. >> public, it is closed. >> i would like to support this comment. commissioner lee: i would like to amend it from the amendment, that we strike the language regarding the marina, that
second paragraph on page 3, and limit this, since we are voting on big rec. this is an authorization from the commission to enter into negotiations specifically for big rec. i believe the marina's site should be a separate process. so i would like to strike the last paragraph on page 3 of our docket which talks about the marina and so forth and to clarify that we are only authorizing staff to enter into negotiations with big rec at this point. >> i will accept those. president buell: moved and seconded. thank you. >> we are now on item 11, recreation and park department of reach policy. president buell: we are moving i
contend to take place after item 13 because we have to clear the room for a second session and we thought the fewer people we have to clear the more convenient. >> 10 to the bottom of 13. >> we are on 11. >> we jumped. we are right here on 11. >> now we are having technical the occult is. >> we are?
>> that is 12. >> just a comment. you know how really important this is, i think, to me, and i think my fellow commissioners. i was delighted to see that this is on our agenda. when i opened my binder and saw page with nothing on it, i was disappointed. >> understood. i took the last round of feedback sunday night. that ended around 9:00 p.m.. i incorporated that into a policy i emailed about this afternoon. the intent was to solicit feedback from a variety of groups and incorporate that in the policy. at the time of the deadline for submission of commission reports, i had not completed
that process. >> earlier, i asked the gentleman from prosac if he had paperwork. you say this meeting was tuesday? >> yes. >> why didn't we have something here in our binders? >> the binders go out on friday. the binders went out prior to the meeting and my intent was to incorporate their feed back into the average policy. i did not have their feedback. it was emailed this afternoon and i do have hard copies. >> let me ask that question again, commissioner. since we are missing at least one commissioner, i am thinking of commissioner commissioner levitanlevitan, is this time se? i think in commissioner harrison's question is implied
why not wait until the next meeting? >> the intent was to provide information on the feedback obtained from the process and then actually have -- >> so that is your presentation tonight? >> and then have the policy available for public review before the next meeting. president buell: so this is a report on the outreach response. >> it is not an action item. it is discussion only. commissioner lee: i am just wondering what the purpose of having the feedback for the policy -- how does that help us as the commission? i would like to see the policy first and then the feedback. right now, we have nothing to compare the back to. >> i presented in july about the type of coverage currently do, which is somewhat ad hoc.
the intent was to solicit information and feedback prior to something coming down on high from the department and take that in and incorporate it. >> so you took the existing policy and got the back and what we are going to hear is the result of the process. commissioner lee: but we do not have that. we have the existing policy. >> i am concerned that without reference the feedback, for me as a commissioner, does not have -- has less meaning. president buell: what i am going to recommend is that we repackage this so the commission has a chance to see something before the presentation with your staff report about various comments from the group's and give them a chance to digest it before you come before us. i think it is just a better way to proceed.
i want a written report that is in the package in a timely fashion so that there is something that the commission has read before they hear your presentation. what it needs to include is the july version of what the outreach policy was prior to going to these organizations so we see what they are reacting to and we get a chance to see the entire package. >> ok. president buell: is that all right? >> the hope was to air this publicly now so there are an additional two weeks. president buell: i understand, but it is hard to air it publicly if the public was not able to see it either. no one in anticipation -- or if they were, we had not seen it. i think we need to see it in the package and then those who want to testify from the public will have the same opportunity.
we will put it over. thank you very much. they may not or they may. >> i do not know. i am going to list three names and i do not know if you want to comment. ernestine weiss and victoria bell. >> we do need our reach. that is very important. however -- ken i have your attention? we do need our reach. this is very important. if you are just going to give us lip service and not do anything, you will not be very effective. there are a few things we were concerned about. number one, and you are not going to like this, but this was engineered and shoved down our throats without any outreach and
information and the public objects. they have signed a petition already against it. this is very important. i am sure you can go back and rescind it as they have suggested and picked out another venue to placate the people that are very hurt by all this, who believe this was not correct. it was defeated at the board of supervisors anyway. however, the second thing is that others were done ahead of schedule and they had a community meeting after the fact. that is not the way to do things. people object to the secrecy, the under handedness. the bocce courts are a ridiculous idea. i was not told about it. there are a lot of people in our complex, 1245 units, the second- biggest apartment development in
the city. we were not informed. the permit policy about the loud, amplified sound -- all these things have to be addressed. the public is very angry. there are solutions if only you would listen and act on them. president buell: thank you. >> my name is linda lightheiser. i was asked to be in a work group to discuss the proposal you are looking at today. what i wanted to add -- i work with neighborhood parks council. we had a wonderful discussion with the department and we were able to give our neighborhood perspective. i work with a lot of park groups in excelsior. we were able to give our feedback on what we thought good of which could be and where it was lacking. one of my big concerns that i
want the apartment to address is that e-mail seems to be the most common way nowadays to inform people, but i hear that the department e-mail database is woefully inaccurate. a lot of times neighborhood groups come and go. neighborhood group presidents come and go. i have noticed a lot of times that people who are on the list -- the group no longer exists. perhaps people have changed positions within the group. we need a way to keep databases updated. they should be as current as possible so we can work together. you could give some sort of a survey that has to go out dearly to update neighborhood lists and community organizations, working with our supervisors. i know that is part of it. but i really think if we are going to rely on e-mail we have to make sure it is accurate. president buell: thank you very
much. >> good evening, supervisors -- commissioners. wrong group. [laughter] president buell: they get paid a lot more than we do. >> thank you for letting us come before you. we have been engaged with this outreach plan. i have had the pleasure of working with the steering committee, with sarah, with various boards, giving the back. i know you have not seen the new plan. i want to step up and say i see illustrated by today's conversation that this hour which plan is necessary. i hope we have as packed a crowd to cheer the policy later as we did earlier today. we really support the development and commit to working with staff to refine and implement the policy outlined, moving forward. we will help and lend our support as a community to help
them in gauge on e-mail and any other way we work further to do our outreach plan. thank you again. i want to acknowledge you. president buell: i hope you will come back when we see the whole plan. it is so important that we really want to do this right. i have had comments from other commissioners before today because it was not written in the package. i understand what the plan was and i think we just need to see it to be ready to digest it. but it is a nice endorsement, coming from you. thank you. >> when i said i was going to leave at 6:00 i did mean i was going to leave at 6:00. president buell: you are late. >> anyway, i was serious about that, but this is how important this is to me. i really appreciate the fact that you did not just say come
back in two weeks. one of the things i want to bring up to you is enforcement not only of existing policies within the department but what do you do when you have a situation like today? everybody acknowledges that the process was not good, and yet we are saying maybe next time we will get it better. but it does not seem like we do get it better the next time. the next process -- we can go down the list. it seems to me that if we have this policy we have to say this is what we are going to do. we expect that all your project managers -- when they came to prosac, it was a staff member who said we have good project managers and we have some
project managers who are good with outreach to community and some who are not so good. unfortunately, i have experienced both. i want to say one project manager who will not call up by name was a very positive experience because she included us in every step of the way. another project manager is not as good and use us as adversaries and does not return phone calls, which of course does not lessen the frustration. it just means that when she does get around to doing it it creates a problem because some people are not receptive to hear that. you will have another two weeks, but those are the things i wanted to say. president buell: thank you very much. commissioner lee: i have a suggestion for the next meeting
when we do take it up to have the existing -- the policy that we had, what you are proposing, and feedback, all three of them in the packet so that we can have it the week before the commission meeting, have a chance to review it, see the changes that are being proposed, and clearly see the feedback that community members have had so we can then engage, and also to give the public an opportunity to look at the policy, to look at the changes. this is too important a topic. it warrants attention, i believe. >> to clarify, are you expecting at the next commission meeting it would be an action item, or
that it would be for discussion in two weeks and adopted in november? president buell: if it does not need to be modified. the important issue you are hearing is that all of the contentious items that come to us in this period of change where we are trying to provide outreach for changes taking place in the park, mainly on revenue-producing ideas, have a very legitimate range of reactions. how we structure or a reach program is going to be critical. what the commission is asking is to see in writing what the gve+
those procedures, and then see a document that respects those considerations and says this is the new proposed our reach. we will hear that for discussion only. we will get community input. we will get more community input because they will have seen it. >> our intent was to provide that feedback and then have that document on view. president buell: we are faced with that situation where they are coming to testify when we have an action item in front of us. >> that will be in the public view for more than five days. we will solicit feedback on the website. it is currently posted on the website. just to clarify, we do not currently have a policy. president buell: what did you present in july? >> i presented what we do, but it is not codified anywhere. president buell: we would like to see a representation of what that is. commissioner lee: we have to have a meaningful discussion rather than say nothing. that is our point.
>> the intent was to get your feedback. president buell: i understand. commissioner bonilla: i would feel a lot more comfortable if it were not only talking about policy but implementation as well. what i mean is when you put out a policy, you also include in their, if it is a document we are going to get, in terms of the policy how it could be implemented, what the staff said it would take to implement it and whether it would be feasible to implement it. i think the commission -- many commissions in san francisco,
here in the city, at do have the responsibility to develop policies. what do they do with the policies? i think it is important that i would see some thought process going into not just the policy itself and how it could be implemented. when it is presented. president buell: i think that concludes the item. thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? public comment is closed. president buell: i would like to move to item 12, which is information only, which spells out the committee process. you can look at it and consider it, but i think it reflects what is being proposed. >> this is a notice to the public because we have to notice them 10 days in advance before october 21. president buell: i like that
even better. we are going to go into executive session. >> is there any public comment on item 12? simenon, public comment is closed. -- seeing none, public comment is closed. now we are on item 13, general public comment. now we are on item 9a, closed session. is there any public comment on the closed session? then we need to vote on whether to go into closed session. president buell: moved and to disclose the documents held in closed session. do you want to not talk about it? president buell: not talk about it. commissioner martin: i do not think we want to talk about it. president buell: we are going to take an action in public and
that will be enough. moved and seconded. all those in favor? >> we are now on item 10, the golden gate park windmill. president buell: is there anyone inside -- outside who would like to come back and hear this wonderful discussion? seeing non-, we will entertain a motion. >> hold on. president buell: we are going to wait. >> there is no public comment. president buell: it has been moved. is there a second? all those in favor? opposed, none. >> we are on item 14, commissioners' matters. commissioner lee: i want to bring up for a future meeting the parks trust budget from last year